4.6 Article

Riverine distribution of mussel environmental DNA reflects a balance among density, transport, and removal processes

期刊

FRESHWATER BIOLOGY
卷 64, 期 8, 页码 1467-1479

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/fwb.13319

关键词

eDNA removal; eDNA techniques; eDNA transport; invasive species; zebra mussels

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Agriculture [2013-33522-21007]
  2. Environmental Protection Agency [FP-91781601-0]
  3. NIFA [2013-33522-21007, 687713] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sampling water for environmental DNA (eDNA) is an emerging tool for documenting species presence without direct observation, allowing for earlier detection and faster response than conventional sampling methods in aquatic ecosystems. However, current understanding of how eDNA is transported in streams and rivers remains imprecise, with uncertainty of how the unique transport properties of eDNA may influence the interpretation of a positive detection. To test the utility of eDNA sensing in flowing waters, we compared quantitative eDNA analyses to zebra mussel density surveys in a Danish river. Although flowing water complicates the relationships between eDNA production, transport, and removal, we found weak but positive relationships between eDNA concentration, zebra mussels, and biophysical parameters. For example, while zebra mussel densities were only moderately predicted by eDNA concentrations, eDNA was most strongly influenced by nutrient concentrations and water velocity. These results may be used to inform future sampling strategies, where hydrological variables could better constrain eDNA fate. We also modelled estimates for net eDNA transport, retention, and degradation to estimate the relative importance of these processes for removing eDNA from the water column. In our study system, physical retention accounted for c. 70% of removal when compared to degradation alone, making it an important process to consider when assessing downstream eDNA transport.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据